voron-stealthchanger-cmyk, six toolheads, two cost numbers, and no link to the bill of materials

The components table is eight empty cells and one tool emoji

The components section is an HTML table with two columns. The right column has a heading, a link, and a paragraph of description for each of the eight components.

The left column is a fixed-width cell containing a link and nothing else. Eight times. There is no image, no thumbnail, no alt text. The cells are laid out for images that were never put in.

One of the eight is different: it holds a tool emoji instead of a link, so that row does not even attempt to be a thumbnail. Every other row is an anchor to a directory with no content, which on a rendered page is an invisible link the width of a small image.

The repository does have an images directory, and the readme opens with a link to a video. So the visual material exists somewhere. None of it is wired into the table that exists to display it.

The result is that the single most useful page in the repository, the index of eight printed assemblies, is a two-column table of prose with a column of nothing next to it.

The two cost figures do not divide into each other

The cost section gives two numbers and then points at a separate file for the breakdown. The first is about six hundred and ninety one dollars for a six-toolhead upgrade, excluding the base printer and excluding additional filament colours.

The second is about ninety two dollars and change per toolhead, described as the figure for someone building a different number of tools.

Divide the first by six and you get a number well above the second. Six of the second is well below the first. The gap is a fixed cost that the summary does not name. The obvious reading is that the first figure includes the toolchanger hardware itself while the second is the marginal cost of adding one more tool. That reading makes complete sense and it is not written anywhere.

For a reader deciding whether to build four tools or six, the difference between those two interpretations is the whole cost of the toolchanger, and the sentence that should say so is one clause long.

The rest of the section is well handled. The exclusions are stated in the summary rather than buried, the question being answered is quoted from a reader, and the detailed breakdown lives in its own file where it belongs.

The print settings are a blockquote whose list markers are malformed

The most operationally important block in the readme is a print note. It sets a layer height, an extrusion width marked as forced, an infill percentage, a wall count, a number of solid top and bottom layers, and a support setting of none.

Two things about it. The infill type is given as a list of five acceptable patterns with no default chosen, so a part printed in one and a part printed in another are both compliant, and the readme does not say which the author used. And the whole block is a blockquote whose list markers are written with the dash butted directly against the greater-than sign, with no space.

That second detail is not cosmetic in a repository whose entire purpose is telling someone what to slice. Depending on how the renderer handles it, the settings render as a run-on paragraph or as a list, and someone copying the values out of a run-on paragraph has to work out where one setting ends and the next begins.

The note also carries an escape clause that is easy to miss and important: these settings apply unless a component's own readme says otherwise. So there are eight places where the global defaults can be overridden, and the readme does not list which components override them. A builder who prints everything from the global block without opening the eight component folders is slicing parts that the author sliced differently.

Three of six filament rows have two sources in a column headed source

The filament section exists because of a specific problem: online photographs do not reliably match the actual colour of a spool, so the author published the exact products used to stop people buying rolls repeatedly until the cyan and magenta are right.

That is a genuinely useful thing to write down, and the table that results names six colours with a brand and a material for each.

The table's third column is headed source, and three of the six rows put two links in it. White, grey, and black each have one link for the ABS variant and one for the ASA variant, which are different materials from the same manufacturer. The other three colours have one link each.

So a reader looking at the grey row has to choose a material before they can choose a supplier, and the choice is not made for them anywhere. That is arguably the right way round, since the printer accepts both and the parts were designed with a mix, but the column header promises one source per row and three rows deliver two.

Three of the six links are shortened retail URLs rather than direct product pages, which means they will eventually resolve somewhere else. That is a normal thing to find in a build log and a reason to buy the material while the links work.

One of the eight components is a configuration diff rather than a part

Seven of the eight entries in the components table are printed assemblies: a dock, a backplate, a bracket, a spool holder, a toolhead cowl, a brush mount, and a board enclosure.

The eighth is tuning. It covers changes to the printer configuration and to the toolchanger's macro configuration, and the specific change named is a dock path trimmed from four waypoints down to something shorter, with the high-rise ramp-in on approach removed from the default.

That is a deviation from the toolchanger's own default motion, and the readme gives no reason for it beyond that it reduces toolchange time. A builder applying it is changing how the dock approaches at height, and the readme does not say what happens if a toolhead fails to dock on the modified path, whether the change is safe with every dock, or whether the default exists for a reason the author did not need.

The section also sits inside a table of printed parts, under a global print note that does not apply to it, and its table cell holds a tool emoji where the other seven hold empty links. So the one component with no geometry is also the one a reader skims past.

It is still the most valuable entry in the table for anyone who already owns the hardware, which is the audience that matters.

The bill of materials is in the repository root and the readme never links it

The root of the repository holds a comma-separated bill of materials file, a cost estimate document, a licence, the readme, an images directory, and the eight component directories. Everything the readme's contents list points to is a directory or the cost file.

The bill of materials is not in that list. Nowhere in the readme is it named, linked, or described. For a repository whose value is a set of parts, a consolidated parts list is the first thing a builder looks for, and it exists, one directory above the readme.

The components table also does not aggregate. Three separate entries each describe something that operates across all six toolheads: the backplate is the single disconnect point for every umbilical, the board enclosure gives each of the six boards its own switched power channel off a shared bus, and the brush mount runs nozzle offset calibration across all six heads from one button. Each is documented as a single part. None is documented as the system it belongs to.

There is also no wiring description. The backplate entry names two connector standards for two different services, one for the bus and one for filament, and the bracket entry names a third component. A builder assembling the chain has the connector types and no diagram.

The name promises four inks and the build has six toolheads

The repository is named after a four-colour printing system, and the readme opens by explaining that the name is a joke.

The explanation runs that the letters stood for the author's own printer colour scheme, that they are a nod to the subtractive primaries used by two-dimensional printing, and that they gesture at the capabilities of a multi-tool printer, specifically the possibility of advancing the slicer through a full spectrum. The sentence containing that explanation misspells the word referred.

So the name is a deliberate reference to something the build does not do. There is no colour mixing, no four-ink system, and no inkjet. There are six toolheads, each with its own extruder and hotend, which is a different mechanism for getting more than one colour into a part.

The joke is fine and the explanation is generous. What a reader browsing the repository does not get is the number six from the name, which is the number that determines the cost, the size of the backplate, the number of switched power channels, and whether the whole approach fits their printer. That number is in the first paragraph of the description and in four of the eight component entries, and it is not in the name that will appear in a search result.

Three typos land in the sentences that are trying to help

Read the prose rather than the tables and the misspellings are easy to collect. The word referred is misspelled in the sentence explaining what the repository's name means. A contraction in the filament section is written with the apostrophe in the wrong place, in the sentence telling the reader not to keep buying rolls. And the spool holder description contains a duplicated word, in the sentence explaining what the part is intended to become.

None of these is important on its own. They matter because of where they are. Each one is in a sentence whose job is to remove friction for somebody who has never built this printer: what the name means, what to buy, what the part is for. A builder reading the filament section to avoid wasting money meets a typo in the first line and has to decide how much care the rest of the section deserves.

The repository has no releases, no tags, and no homepage set in its own metadata, and the last push to the default branch is 11 September 2026. The licence is the GNU General Public Licence, which is the copyleft with the broadest reach of the common ones, and for a repository of printable parts that is a deliberate and defensible choice. The readme names the licence without a sentence about what it covers, which for a hardware repository is the one thing a reuser would want to know.

The build itself is a Voron 2.4 with a toolchanger, an auto-calibration probe on every dock, and a nozzle wipe on every dock event. That is a well-specified machine and the documentation reflects it.

Editorial conclusion

Build from this if you have a Voron 2.4, you want six tools, and you are comfortable deriving the rest from a bill of materials and eight component folders rather than from an assembly guide. Four things to do first. Read the bill of materials file in the repository root, because the readme never links it and it is the only consolidated parts list. Work out which of the two cost figures applies to you, because the total and the per-toolhead number are not the same figure divided by six and the difference is a fixed cost the summary does not name. Decide whether to keep the toolchanger's default dock path, because this build removes the high-rise ramp-in and does not say why that is safe. And read each component's own readme for print overrides before you slice, because the global settings block is a default and not an instruction.

Frequently asked questions

Official sources

1. Issues
2. License: GPL-3.0
3. README
4. Rich-Nelson/voron-stealthchanger-cmyk on GitHub